| Author |
 Topic  |
|
vilainde
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Niue
7443 Posts |
 Posted - 01/14/2005 : 07:14:58
|
Hey hey... A "longest post ever" contest and no one told me? I'm in!
Denis
"I believe in your perfect face..." |
 |
|
|
Newo
~ Abstract Brain ~
Spain
2674 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2005 : 07:22:55
|
Would this classify as protection under guise of sovereignity? I believe his chemical attacks on his own people were known to be occurring daily at the very time these two were getting cosy.
--
If there´s pole planted in your back then you´re a fixture. |
|
|
|
Cult_Of_Frank
= Black Noise Maker =
Canada
11687 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2005 : 07:41:10
|
Listen Dallas, you have to choose. Are we talking about WMD which, like it or not, was the initial and ONLY reason that was given (at least, all we heard about) for the invasion, or are we talking about yet another oh-so-successful-US-meddling-in-regime-changes. Canada was appalled at the concept of going in for regime change and I remember the early days when Bush first admitted to it to Chretien, because we didn't buy into the WMD thing.
As for Saddam - you put him there. Further, if this was about preventing genocide, then the US (and indeed the UN, including Canada) should have stepped in years and years ago when it was actually happening. Nobody has brought up nor defended Saddam until now, when you did, only to deflect the topic from the black eye delivered by the whole WMD hoax which, sorry buddy, you're late to the party, is old news and not surprising in the least.
You want to talk Saddam, we can do that. I think you'll even find that you & I agree a lot more on that than on this. But this thread is about WMD and your governments deception to its people and the rest of the world. If you choose to believe that your government is filled with idiotic clods and they made an "honest mistake" in ignoring and fabricating intelligence, so be it. I know by now that there is no convincing you that anyone in the republican party could ever do anything underhanded that would involve more than one person. But can you at least consider the possibility that there is enough evidence to suggest that someone might believe you were lied to?
PS, yes, I do support raping, pillaging, and genocide, thanks for asking. This is why I don't actually hate the US, however much you may think I do.
Yeah, I can do cheap shots too, but what does it accomplish other than demonstrating my own childishness/bullheadedness? Please try discussing things like an adult instead of the internet equivalent of spitting in my face.
quote:
Originally posted by Dallas
COF you have missed the point entirely. I am not holding out hope or suspicion that WMD's are there. Your not paying attention at all.
I always supported the war from the humanitarian/state sponsor of terror view. If its still in the archives of htis forum that can be proven easily.
This quote from you is nonsense:
"Dallas, does it REALLY matter to you even if there's not a single person in the world who could prove that there were NO WMD? Does someone saying that going to war on something that hasn't been satisfactorily proven and is all hearsay and rhetoric and fabricated not make the same point? Or is it now OK to invade a sovereign nation against international law on the basis of this same garbage that was being held up as fact by the Bush regime and its followers?"
Saddam was a legitimate leader of a legitimate government? And the US is the outlaw. Do you see the corner you have painted yourself into? How many hundreds of thousands of people need to be found in mass graves in Iraq before you stop defending Saddam and his henchman? Saddam's government was an oppressive despot who supported terrorism. Proven that he was supporting Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal (they were caught in Baghdad). Proven that he was making cash payments (with Francs no doubt) to the families of suicide bombers. Proven to be the biggest mass murderer of our generation. Yet, this is YOUR guy. Your leader of a sovereign nation that must be protected.
What are the Kurds in Iraq? What are the shiites in Iraq? Why should these peoples oppression be ignored? Because Saddam is the leader of a Sovereign nation? So he can kill, rape and mame whatever ethnicities he wishes? This is who you defend regardless of whatever mind games you play with yourself. You prefer Saddams death squads and oppression to a liberating force of Westerners.
You would likely condemn a man making $1/hr more than a women in the West but if Saddam wants to rape the daughters of his enemies or if his sons go to market and select a girl to rape, that is to be protected under your guise of sovereignty?
Nice ethos man.
You and your ilk are myopic on WMD's because it fuels your hate. You are willing to accept ethnic genocide, rape, oppression, fraud, burning oil fields, etc. as long as you can concoct a false indictment of the US. Again, nice ethos. You are all true humanitarians.
 "Join the Cult of Frank 2.0 / And you'll be enlightened (free for 1.x members)" |
|
|
|
Dallas
= Cult of Ray =
USA
725 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2005 : 07:42:21
|
Newo, your arent even trying. You obviously have no idea in what year the pic was taken or when Chemical Ali did his work for Saddam.
You 'believe'? How about you would 'like to believe'... |
|
|
|
Dallas
= Cult of Ray =
USA
725 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2005 : 07:52:54
|
COF - sorry, but you are in way over your head. WMD was the only reason? That is either a implicit lie or you have been burying your head in the same pile of sand el barto does. There were a host of reasons to liberate the Iraqi's. They were all laid out there in public. Are you willing to stand by the statement that WMD was the "ONLY" reason given for invading Iraq? Why do you have to concoct a false argument here? You dont recall all of the speeches about the 'brutal dictator' before the invasion? The Iraqi's who testified before Congress and the UN about the brutality didnt exist?
Again, you have to cling to WMD's alone because your position is unsustainable. Ethnic exterminators are bad, liberation is good. Your position argues the opposite. Sad really.
Saddam is a sovereign leader, he must be protected. Really, what an incredible humanitarian stance. |
|
|
|
Broken Face
-= Forum Pistolero =-
USA
5155 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2005 : 08:02:14
|
you're right dallas - the other reason given for the invasion was the iraq involvement in 9/11, which is also total bullshit.
-Brian
If you move I shoots!
|
|
|
|
Cult_Of_Frank
= Black Noise Maker =
Canada
11687 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2005 : 08:05:37
|
No, I'm saying that this was the initial reason given to the international community and when it largely didn't wash, a month or so before the final security council vote, THEN it became about regime change. Which, as I said, I remember quite well.
You say I have to stick to arguing about WMDs, I say you can't stick to it because the position is weak. And rather than defend on one topic, you switch to a different one to form a counter attack before the legs of whatever high horse you were previously standing on kick out.
I'm done attempting to talk with you. If my head's in the sand, yours is up your ass. I guess that's why Bush's bullshit doesn't stink to you.
"Join the Cult of Frank 2.0 / And you'll be enlightened (free for 1.x members)" |
|
|
|
Dallas
= Cult of Ray =
USA
725 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2005 : 08:12:25
|
COF - again you are in over your head. Regime change for Iraq has been a congressionally approved US policy since the Clinton admnistration. Bush was not even involved in the debate. You remember it quite well huh? Just not what decade it took place in?
I totally understand why you would abandon the debate, given your grasp of facts like the one outlined above.
As far as WMD's go, what do you want me to say? They arent there. The entire world was convinced they were. Saddam either got them out or he was playing a shell game all along. A gamble that provided the international community with another reason to take him out. The pre-invasion intelligence was wrong based on all evidence available. |
|
|
|
Broken Face
-= Forum Pistolero =-
USA
5155 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2005 : 09:00:12
|
i can't wait for the history books to prove you totally and utterly wrong so generations and generations can see how terrible of a president Bush has been and how stupid were the people who elected him in TWICE
i do not understand how people can justify this war - it has been faught on false pretenses, it has done NOTHING - it has made a country 10x more unstable, there were no WMDs, the "new" government is a joke (if it ever gets off the ground).
look, was saddam a bad guy? of course. should he have been removed from power? possibly, but certainly not the way we did it. is it a good thing that he can't kill any more people? yes, but others are doing his job for him now. just like how if we capture osama bin laden, the killing will continue, because his followers do not need him to give them every tiny strategic move.
-Brian
If you move I shoots!
|
|
|
|
Dallas
= Cult of Ray =
USA
725 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2005 : 09:15:30
|
Again, the heart of the left gets exposed.
So Broken Face you have concocted a position for yourself that has you rooting against freedom and democracy. You are rooting for the terrorists to win in the middle east so that history will show that GWB was wrong. Nice.
|
|
|
|
Broken Face
-= Forum Pistolero =-
USA
5155 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2005 : 14:08:57
|
no Dallas, history has already proved that Bush was wrong - my only hope for the world is peace and prosperity and he has fucked us over on both accounts. how dare you accuse me of being pro-terrorism. this is the typical red state attitude - you wouldn't know terrorism if i smacked you in the face, but someone who used to be able to see the twin towers from his home town makes an anti-bush statement and suddenly i'm charlie terrorism. grow up and get a clue
-Brian
If you move I shoots!
|
|
|
|
KimStanleyRobinson
* Dog in the Sand *
1972 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2005 : 15:21:49
|
I heard some asshat on the radio the other day - a member of a pro bush group that was having trouble getting demonstration space on the sidewalk for the inaugural parade.
He said some shit like "the protesters have allied themselves with the terrorists, with Saddam Hussein, with Osama Bin Laden..."
He was talking about people that were there to protest the inaugural party.
Some of Dallas's statements ring of this same sentiment; that if you do not support the president and everything he is then you have allied yourself with the "turrisss."
Right.
Fear.
Lovely, tasty fear.
Fear gives you power doesn't it?
Like a kid in an afterchool fight. |
|
|
|
BLT
> Teenager of the Year <
South Sandwich Islands
4204 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2005 : 19:33:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by KimStanleyRobinson
He said some shit like "the protesters have allied themselves with the terrorists, with Saddam Hussein, with Osama Bin Laden..."
He was talking about people that were there to protest the inaugural party.
"...the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." --Hermann Goering |
|
|
|
El Barto
= Song DB Master =
USA
4020 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2005 : 19:44:15
|
Dallas, you can argue semantics all you want, but you're ignoring the subject. They lied, plain and simple. You can continue living your life in the typical "denial" fashion of the right, or you can jog your memory and hear it straight from the horse's mouth:
"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."
–George W. Bush, Radio Address, Oct. 5, 2002
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
-Dick Cheney August 26, 2002
"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
-George W. Bush September 12, 2002
"If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world."
-Ari Fleischer December 2, 2002
"We know for a fact that there are weapons there."
-Ari Fleischer January 9, 2003
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
-George Bush March 18, 2003
"Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes."
-Ari Fleisher March 21, 2003
"There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them."
-Gen. Tommy Franks March 22, 2003
"I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction."
-Kenneth Adelman, Defense Policy Board , March 23, 2003
"One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites."
-Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark March 22, 2003
"They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer."
-Donald Rumsfeld May 27, 2003
"U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction."
-Condoleeza Rice May 12, 2003
"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."
-Paul Wolfowitz May 28, 2003
Before
"We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad."
-Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003
After
"I never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country."
-Donald Rumsfeld May 4, 2003
I guess I just wasn't made for these times. |
Edited by - El Barto on 01/14/2005 19:45:39 |
|
|
|
El Barto
= Song DB Master =
USA
4020 Posts |
|
|
starmekitten
-= Forum Pistolera =-
United Kingdom
6370 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2005 : 22:02:25
|
Fistly, not the entire world was convinced that there were WMD's. Just because our prime-minister is a spineless little rent boy doesn't mean this country agreed with the way things occur, and I do believe for the large part we didn't. And I know mostly the rest of europe had it's reservations also. In fact, I think we were all rail-roaded into this war because the US left very little choice.
I know here the rationale behind going to war changed on an almost weekly basis, WMD's (unfounded), Terrorist links (unfounded) and eventually landed on the most palatable which was the end of a vile dictatorship regime. Which should have been done eons ago, or first time round really. This didn't sit as truth either but is the back up position as Dallas so sweetly pointed out, it's hard to arugue against. No one in their right mind advocates the sort of behaviour he describes.
So, seeing as you guys have started this whole 'end of dictatorship and nasty regime' thing who is next? I take it now the whole policemen of the "free" world thing has started it's not going to end at the muslim countries? this would be terribly hypocritical after all.
Saddam was a nasty man to put it in the mildest possible terms, a girl I know her friend fled Iraq with some of her family as a youth. Her grandparents couldn't flee and had to stay behind. At the time of the war Saddam took over the radio and the TV and told them all that these WMD's the foreign soldiers were looking for DID exist and he'd buried them under their houses while they slept so as soon as the bombing started, they were dead. If he had to go, he said, you're all going too. We know he was nasty, no one would refute that.
Out of interest (seriously! I'm asking!) why is it I only ever see the phrase "you on the left" I never see 'us on the left' reffering to you guys as "you on the right"? Especially in discussions like this it comes out, like rather than debate an individual (which would mean taking time to get their viewpoint) you'd rather debate a whole and general grouping which may not contain all of the views of the individual you are talking to?
you
me
we used to be on fire |
|
|
|
Newo
~ Abstract Brain ~
Spain
2674 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2005 : 07:43:21
|
quote:
Dallas
> Teenager of the Year <
USA
576 Posts
Posted - 01/14/2005 : 07:42:21
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newo, your arent even trying. You obviously have no idea in what year the pic was taken or when Chemical Ali did his work for Saddam.
Excellent, you sound like you´re in a position to enlighten me as to the date Saddam changed from being worthy of political office and international gladhands to being a masspoisoning ogre. (For what it´s worth, seems to me he always was, but if you know something I don´t, hit me amigo)
--
If there´s pole planted in your back then you´re a fixture. |
|
|
|
Dallas
= Cult of Ray =
USA
725 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2005 : 09:52:22
|
Duh El Barto, you came up with all of those quotes and not one from someone who supports your dimwitted assertion that YOU (of all people) and others were telling the world there were NO WMD's in Iraq.
And dolt, if Bush is a liar, what are all the other leaders of the world and their intelligence agencies? They were saying the same thing. Seriously, how thick must one be to miss that point. Can you answer that? Maybe if you dig up some more quotes!!
Bush lied!!! Clinton Lied!!!!! They all did! I wonder if they will stop thinking YOU are crazy for saying all along that there were no WMD's?
Your all mouth and no brain stem. Sorry, but I am trying to put it in terms you can understand. If you have any neurons up there, how about explaining the same assertions made by all of those other leaders before the war? Why did they lie to support Bush??
Why years before Bush was even in office did the US Congress make those same claims and vote overwhelmingly to make regime change in Iraq official US policy?? Of course, to protect the lie they all new was coming and were complicit in!!
I'm done swimming in the shallow end of the pool, kiddies, if nothing else, this thread proves how incoherent the arguments from the left are on the War. Thanks for the amusement, all, especially our own little Patrick with analysis straight from bikini bottom... |
|
|
|
Erebus
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1834 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2005 : 10:11:02
|
For those perhaps less familiar with American politics, most of the names you happen not to recognize would be US Senators and Reps.
If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People -- Version 3.0
by John Hawkins
http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002
"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002
"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002
"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002
"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002
"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
|
|
|
|
Newo
~ Abstract Brain ~
Spain
2674 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2005 : 07:49:07
|
Hey Dallas why don´t you answer my question? Cmon I´m not adverse to having my belief system pummelled once in a while.
--
If there´s pole planted in your back then you´re a fixture. |
|
|
|
Stuart
- The Clopser -
China
2291 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2005 : 00:24:10
|
This is interesting.... I'll post when I get home.
This is a high class bureau de change, not some Punch & Judy show on the seafront at Margate! |
|
|
|
Scarla O
= Cult of Ray =
United Kingdom
947 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2005 : 01:29:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
For those perhaps less familiar with American politics, most of the names you happen not to recognize would be US Senators and Reps.
And your point is? I don't think anyone should be even slightly surprised by this as the Bush administration are only following on the policies of the previous Democrat adminstration - US politics is in a permanent cycle of self-denial.
_________________
www.scarlao.co.uk
|
Edited by - Scarla O on 01/17/2005 01:31:24 |
|
|
|
Stuart
- The Clopser -
China
2291 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2005 : 05:38:55
|
America.... fuck yeah!
This is a high class bureau de change, not some Punch & Judy show on the seafront at Margate! |
|
|
|
Erebus
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1834 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2005 : 06:48:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Scarla O
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
For those perhaps less familiar with American politics, most of the names you happen not to recognize would be US Senators and Reps.
And your point is? I don't think anyone should be even slightly surprised by this as the Bush administration are only following on the policies of the previous Democrat adminstration - US politics is in a permanent cycle of self-denial.
I just wanted to make sure that anyone singling out Bush on the WMD issue also realized how pervasive the belief in Iraq WMD was, across the political spectrum. |
|
|
|
Broken Face
-= Forum Pistolero =-
USA
5155 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2005 : 07:05:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
quote:
Originally posted by Scarla O
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
For those perhaps less familiar with American politics, most of the names you happen not to recognize would be US Senators and Reps.
And your point is? I don't think anyone should be even slightly surprised by this as the Bush administration are only following on the policies of the previous Democrat adminstration - US politics is in a permanent cycle of self-denial.
I just wanted to make sure that anyone singling out Bush on the WMD issue also realized how pervasive the belief in Iraq WMD was, across the political spectrum.
Erebus, i will agree that many people on both sides were convinced of Iraq's WMDs. I have a problem w/ 2 pieces of this debate (not brought up by you) - a) that Bush and his staff are NOT accountable because everyone else thought there were WMDs as well and b) that NO ONE denied the WMDs.
First of all, the issue of accountablity. If i were super convincing and told everyone i know that as of feb. 1 the stockmarket would collapse and all US banking, stocks, bonds, etc would fall that day, and suddenly all x-ammount of people i know take all their savings out in cash and hide it in their homes, effectively preparing for this day, and that day never came, i am STILL held to be accountable for the problems that i have caused. In fact, i am MORE responsible than i would be if not a person believed me. Do i blame Bush for being fooled? Not really - i never really bought it, but so many did, that what the hell, i'll give him the benefit of the doubt for once. However, you have a responsibility to your nation and to the world community to speak up now and say "We made a mistake - we started a war on false pretenses." But that will never happen, because somewhere along the line this war became about a regime change and a liberation mentality.
Secondly, there clearly were people who didn't believe the WMD piece from the beginning, and that is never ackowledged. To ignore them is to let the gov't off the hook even more, and there is no reason for that. Our gov't fucked up - let's agree on that and move on.
-Brian
If you move I shoots!
|
|
|
|
Homers_pet_monkey
= Official forum monkey =
United Kingdom
17125 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2005 : 09:41:18
|
It's a real shame this topic has turned into a good example of why perhaps we should not have serious discussion on this forum. Basically because some people are too stupid to have them without resorting to name calling.
One thing that can be said for the "pointless" topics, they are free from such nastyness. In fact they are usually full of quite the opposite, as "pointless" as that may seem to some.
http://www.thefutureheads.co.uk/ |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Hunt for WMD comes up empty handed
